The Canon Thread - Page 5

Howdy friends,
I am a dslr newbie, even tough time to time I read mainstream camera reviews in dpreview, fred miranda, magazines etc .

I was pretty much settled on buying a used 300d or 350d as a starter package. However, I came across a deal (not certain yet) for 1D for around $700. It seems that it is little bit under the market value.

Do you think is it a good move to buy a 6 years old but still a great camera for almost twice the cost of used 350d?

Your insights are greatly appreciated...

I wouldn't go for it. Its sensor is outdated (low resolution and ISO), and even if it's still in good working order, it's going to be a complex camera to try to learn on. The 350 is a very capable camera that will give you good auto features for when you're first starting off.

thank you for the straightforward answer

The 1D would be a pretty ambitious step for a first DSLR, but I personally would go for it. $700 is a good deal on a still very capable camera, and it can hold its market value quite well in case you want something else (while the Rebels tend not to). Plus, the only thing the 1D has "inferior" to the Rebels is the resolution. But what beginner is going to fully utilize 8MP? The 1D's CCD will provide solid 4MP photos that will be more than enough for you. And unless you're going to be doing a lot of, say, wedding photography, the CCD's noise level is something you won't have to worry about.

Anyway, a DSLR is not a difficult system to learn. I started with a Rebel XT and, without any previous knowledge in photography (what the hell is a shutter), I started right off the bat in M mode. I flipped through the manual to see how to change things, looked online a bit to learn about how aperture and shutter speed affect the image, and then went shooting. I botched a lot of shots but within the first month I had almost no problems getting the shot to look how I wanted it to look. Don't be discouraged by something like a DSLR - its "complexity" should only stir you to learn more.

Good luck

mrvile or dave or someone else, can you please briefly highlight the advantages of 1D over 350d.

I will use the camera for family gatherings, low light shots, portraits, some soccer action, and possibly baby shots (in the future). Thanks again...

The only reason why the 1D would hold its value is because it's already as low as it will get. It's a 6 year old camera!! It's too complicated to be a camera that can last 30 years....it may conk out tomorrow. A used 350D is not going to lose that much value either. And since its half as much, you'll be half as upset if it does break down A newbie to photography would get very lost in trying to figure out controls with a professional 1D series. dSLRs are their own things: I had had experience with manual film SLRs (with my own developing), but even I had to find that I needed some adjustment to learn what AF servo modes, color profiles, file settings, and white balance were all about. If you want decent photos out of a professional camera, you need to know those settings. It's not going to have those "basic modes" that the 350D has.

The main difference with the 1D is that it will be larger and very robust in feel compared to a plastic 350D. You also have to be sure that you have a firewire port or a compact flash reader on your computer (no USB). The main advantages of the 1D is that it's capable of faster shutter speeds (up to 16000), can get up to 8fps continuous shooting, and it has a more precise autofocus. A word of note about autofocus though....SLRs have troubles focusing in low light. They need an assist beam. Consumer cameras like the 350D already have them (basically all dSLRs that have built in flash have them). The 1D does not. So if you need good AF performance in low light with the 1D, you need a speedlite (like the 580EX).

The 1D will be faster for outdoor sports, but when you consider that you'll do family photos, you may ultimately like the 350's higher resolution. Larger resolution is good for making enlargements or cropping.

I still stand by my opinion that the 1D is a bit too much to bite off for your first foray into digital photography....when you consider that it's a professional level camera, it needs more user intervention to get good shots, and it also needs more expensive accessories.

Dave, it sounds like you don't have a lot of faith in our aspiring photographer here

When you first got your camera, how often did you shoot in "P" mode or "green box" mode? After owning my 350D for two years, I have never once shot in anything other than M, Av or Tv, and would not hesitate to trade it in for a 1D if I had the opportunity (and the funds). If Ooztuncer did his research on Fredmiranda, DPR, etc. and is even considering a 1-series, he must be at least somewhat serious about taking up the hobby and I honestly can't see him relying on the auto shooting modes that the 350D offers. The 350D is a camera aimed at the typical consumer who goes to Best Buy and is talked into a DSLR by the salesperson behind the counter, walks away with the camera, kit lens, a memory card, cleaning kit, and all that gear will likely be the first and last photographic gear he purchases. While the 350D is still very much so a capable system, a serious photographer may find that its shortcomings (build, size, autofocus, yucky viewfinder) outweigh its advantages over the other options.

Anywho, the situation does change a bit when it comes to "your first camera." As Dave mentioned, the 350D is much cheaper than the 1D right now, and depending on your financial situation, you are actually much better off going with the cheapest camera body and spending the rest of your money on lenses. And while the 1D is a nice camera, it is only as nice as its glass allows it to be, and I would much rather own a 350D and a foray of good glass than a 1D and, I dunno, a mere 50/1.8.

As for you, Ooztuncer, your best bet is probably to stick with a cheaper body. Have you considered the 20D? It is right in between the entry-level Rebels and the pro-level 1-series, and used bodies go for pretty cheap these days (~$500).

Anyway, in reality the camera body you end up getting isn't really going to matter that much in the long run. Glass > camera, so dedicate the bulk of your research and funds towards the lenses you'll purchase instead of the body.

Nah, it isn't about that I'm sure that if Ooztuncer has the determination to learn on a 1D, he'll get the hang of it. Since you can set meter, WB, and exposure compensation in P mode , I actually do use that mode. I've never used the green box, though, that is true But I also was coming from a manual camera with just center weighted metering: M and priority modes is what I've been accustomed to. For someone who wants to get the most out of basic fundamentals, I think it's easiest to start off one step at a time. If you go to full manual, on a color digital camera, you don't just have to worry about exposure. Even though exposure is a big concept: you're an art major, so you have an advantage of knowing what tonal value is....how many beginers to photography do know about dynamic range? On the POTN forums, I have seen numerous beginners complain about a photo being underexposed when it really was that the color balance was off, they haven't quite gotten the hang of metering, or that the image was blurry because of a bad lens. My favorite is that the sensor must be bad because of funky edges that are going on in the photo (which instead, is again a bad lens showing chromatic aberration).

The thing is that I believe that if you start spending the big bucks in a camera body, it should be one that you will have full use for. The 1D's advantage over the 350D is speed and AF performance for action photography. The 350D is going to be better at portraiture (with its extra resolution...though I just remembered that it doesn't have a spot meter). And the 350D is still not going to be a slouch at action photography. I know for myself, I was just looking for a dSLR that had the awesomeness of FF that I was used to with 35mm. The 5D is something that I can keep for a long time. With my style of shooting (portrait and art photography), I don't need any of the extra features of the 1D series (and actually being a crop body is an issue for me). The only camera that can better the 5D for me, is the twice as expensive 1Ds mkII.

Anywho, just playing devil's advocate so that you get several sides to this decision Ooztuncer

great going guys - I really enjoy reading your comments.

Even tough 1d looks good, with lens + flash it will cost me at least $1000. On the other hand, I can find a rebel (xt), evolt e500 (or 410), pentax k10d, or nikon d40 for half of that price. Me thinks it will be a better start...


EDIT: I just saw your comments lan - thanks for the help. My biggest concern with rebel xt is, its feeling in my hand. I need to get a proper grip.

Ooztuncer, what lens are you looking at? If the 1D costs $700 and you mentioned that the lens + flash would take you to $1000, that extra $300 is not a lot to be devoting to the other equipment. Flash alone (ie-430EX) costs a good $230.

Lenses are something to not be taken lightly, and I learned this the hard way. If your budget is only about $1000, I highly recommend you go with something cheaper and set aside at least $300-400 for the lens, even if you are just a beginner.

Well if it's only a couple things Complexity and ease of use varies from person to person....I would say that the interface of a camera does have a lot to do with how comfortable one feels about shooting. I notice many professional reviews on cameras boil down to whether the person is a Nikon or Canon user.

I realize the 1D is supposed to last longer then a consumer level 350.....but look me up in 30 years lan to let me know if your 1D is still working My Canon AE-1 is still going strong, and is only becoming obsolete because its film based. Modern cameras are complex and may be unreliable once the warranty has expired.

But anyways, if the budget is $1000, I would look at entry level bodies. You'll get better photographs using lenses that have good optics vs getting a more expensive body.

If I were you Ooztuncer, I would go to a store that lets you hold and feel a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc. The consumer level cameras in particular have different feels to them.....getting something that feels comfortable to you is the most important thing.

^^ i tried it 4 or 5 different times already. As I tried to say, i didn't like the feeling of rebel xt in my hands...If I go with xt, I know that I will invest in the bg-e3 grip.

Personally, I like the grip in nikon d50; but again, when I compare one after other cameras against rebel xt in dpreview, I always like the canon's outcomes. My next preference would be the pentax K100D (both in ergonomics and performance wise)...

I have one more question to xt users > as far as I understand, xt's low light performance is poor compared to d40 or k100d - what do you think?

If you want Canon, but don't like the feel of the XTi, then maybe a used 10D (or 20D if cheap enough) would be the best....

While the 10D is older, it's fairly inexpensive these days....and it would have a magnesium body and will be be easier to upgrade to a higher end Canon.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search...trypage=search